1. Kristina Nyberg3 October 2016 at 15:47 (https://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-blog-post-2-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475502433460&m=1#c6615836473548281969)
The discussion about how we sometimes take "facts" at face value and equaling with "the truth" was useful both in class and in your blog. I also valued the additional discussion in the comments regarding potential linguistic differences that come into play.
The difference between "a theory" (= hypothesis) and "theory", I felt that you either didn't grasp fully or if you did, better could have contrasted these two meanings to verify that you did.
2. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 06:57 (https://u1wdx0i7.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-3.html?showComment=1475503072549&m=1#c3213153893767174652)
Nice explanation of the difference of hypothesis and theory, as well as the reflection on how theory cannot be proven.
Also, the impact factor has been new to me. The "popularity factor" is also something that could be criticised - especially because of the fact that we learned that peer process can take years. Within media technology, I find that length of time unacceptable considering how time is of the essence in an industry where turbulence and changes is at such a high rate.
To get back to your discussion on theory, the fact (pun intended) that theory can only be disproven but never proven could be argued to benefit sceptics in a sense of focusing on problems rather than solutions. So it could be argued to fit a certain belief system and how those people view the world, but not others. Could be interesting to discuss theory from a perspective that would be from a different standpoint.
3. Kristina Nyberg3 October 2016 at 07:03 (https://pgd7117.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-reflection.html?showComment=1475503433714&m=1#c4619825713359002609)
The purpose with differentiating "fact" with "theory" was according to my understanding to question how we sometimes may take "a fact" as a truth and never questioning it.
Also, theory could never be proven but only disproven, which means that there is actually no "facts" or add you could call them "absolute truths".
I've also learned by reading other blogs that linguistically these words are used differently and sometimes may not even exist. Possibly that could add additional confusion.
4. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 07:09 (https://u1mv5a16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-second-blog-post.html?showComment=1475503785374&m=1#c2025710416819421280)
That you state the production of new knowledge as central in theory, rather than reproducing existing knowledge proves your understanding of the concept. I also like that you have explained the process of reaching your conclusions, especially the part of what theory is not; clarifying potential confusions for those that still didn't grasp the concept.
5. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 07:15 (https://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blog-post-theme-3-research-and.html?showComment=1475504150270&m=1#c5615726683593472092)
Your reasoning about scientific theories being more reliable than philosophical theories is flawed. You argue that human beings and their ideas are a reason for uncertainty and complexity. But scientific theories are seen through human beings and interpreted by them. What would be the purpose of these theories unless they were interpreted and communicated by people?
6. Kristina Nyberg3 October 2016 at 07:20 (https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3reflection-research-and-theory.html?showComment=1475504443993&m=1#c2479531950091568781)
Great that you emphasized that disproven theory is still (potentially valid) theory! This was new to me as well. The contrast mentioned between various definitions you found also helps to explain potential confusions someone that isn't familiar with the concept of theory might have.
7. Kristina Nyberg3 oktober 2016 07:24 (https://u1j8du7c.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-32.html?showComment=1475504651590&m=1#c9050482174925667790)
Your definition of theory is reasonable, but it is also good that you have analysed your own bias on glorifying theory formed within an institution.
8. Kristina NybergOctober 3, 2016 at 7:29 AM (https://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/research-and-theory-post-2.html?showComment=1475504944815&m=1#c699297924720901995)
Nice addition with the discussion about differences between philosophical and scientific studies, pinpointing that regardless if content there is always need for interpretation. Nevertheless, I disagree with your use of the word "logic" in this context about scientific studies as it gives the impression of being more valid than philosophical ones. But overall, a nice reflection for being new in the topic. Seems like you have learned a lot.
9. Kristina Nyberg3. lokakuuta 2016 klo 3.34 (https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-3-part-2-reflections.html?showComment=1475505274679&m=1#c5607787807343198840)
Although I think we concluded in class that theory remains valid after being disproven and you either missed it out attended another seminar that me, I appreciate that you added a discussion on who is behind theory and what/who adds validity to theory. The "messenger" communicating theory is a key factor that sometimes is forgotten. Thanks for bringing it up!
10. Kristina NybergOctober 3, 2016 at 7:49 AM (https://u12vkokq.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflections-on-theme-3-research-and.html?showComment=1475506152888&m=1#c557390927827611231)
"We have learned what constitutes them, how we construct them, and perhaps most importantly, what they are good for."
This part about theory, claiming that the most important part being what they are good for is questionable. Do you mean practical appliance, usefulness in general or something else? Either way I disagree slightly with this view as I see theory as a framework to use, but the definition is as concluded anyways more or less subjective in any case.
Positive note is that your discussion regarding peer review already had me thinking; due to the conflict in turbulent changes in the environment (certainly within media technology) balanced with the quality check that peer review offers, maybe this system needs to change.
Commerical institutes offering theory can be as valid as any other produced theory. However, it is always worth to question the intent behind a study and in this case another question becomes "Is there anyone profiting of results?"
Some examples of problematic commercially based research from the past is the bra (sponsored by bra companies making us think there is any physiological function why to use it, when it is purely cosmetical) and car companies such as Volkswagen and Ford that produce high emissions and questionable vehicles disguised behind the umbrella of research. Not to mention Nestlé and their campaign to promote supplement before breastfeeding babies in third world countries. So the validity of commercial research is in my opinion for these reasons slightly lower than other theory. But then again, one can always question the intent, regardless of origin.
No comments:
Post a Comment